no title

Editorial

Government backs off

Holder’s rules curb most secret seizures of journalist’s records

About our Editorials

Dispatch editorials express the view of the
Dispatch editorial board, which is made up of the publisher, the president of
The Dispatch, the editor and the editorial-writing staff. As is the traditional newspaper
practice, the editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.
Comments and questions should be directed to the
editorial page editor.

Also in Opinion

Subscribe to The Dispatch

Already a subscriber?
Enroll in EZPay and get a free gift!
Enroll now.

Saturday July 20, 2013 5:02 AM

While U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s apparent new respect for the importance of free
journalism is a tad tardy — the administration’s assault on the integrity of the First Amendment
has been disturbing — new guidelines announced recently by Holder are a move in the right
direction.

The new rules, which President Barack Obama has endorsed, restrict the circumstances in which
government investigators can use secret court orders to seize the phone records and emails of
journalists who may have been given government secrets.

Holder’s report also calls for the Justice Department to back off from its relative eagerness
to respond to leaks of classified information with criminal investigations — something the Obama
administration has done seven times, compared with three such investigations for all previous
presidents combined.

First Amendment-backing groups praise the change, but also call for further protection.

Under the revised rules, prosecutors in most cases will be required to notify news
organizations when they intend to seek a subpoena to obtain journalists’ phone records. Advance
notice gives the journalism organizations a chance to contest the matter in court.

But the rules still would allow for a secret seizure if the attorney general declares a “
compelling reason” for it. That’s not enough protection against abuse.

When the government intends to review journalists’ email and phone records without informing
the target, it should have to get the approval of a judge, as suggested by several groups.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press noted, wisely, that such a check is
important because “so many important rights hinge on the ability to test the government's need for
records before they are seized.”

Holder’s rules also bar investigators from declaring a reporter a “co-conspirator” in a
criminal leak — a tactic used to get a judge’s permission to secretly comb the emails of James
Rosen, a Fox News reporter to whom a government security analyst had divulged secret information.

Criminalizing journalists for doing their work attacks the very foundation of a free society,
by making it harder for a free press to inform the public about what the government is doing. Such
information is vital to hold government accountable.

One hopes that the fury that followed revelations of the administration’s secret targeting of
Associated Press reporters and of Rosen — condemnation that rained from all parts of the political
spectrum — has kindled a sincere intent by the administration to respect press freedoms.

Along with the report on new investigatory rules, Holder echoed the president’s call for a
federal shield law, a measure that would allow federal-government whistleblowers to alert reporters
to problems and wrongdoing without fear that a reporter will be forced to reveal their identities.

A shield law, like any protection for journalists, poses a knotty problem in the age of
bloggers, social media and citizen journalism: Who is a journalist, worthy of special protection?

Allowing the government to declare who is and isn’t a legitimate journalist could bring
obvious problems.